Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RTev who wrote (28127)	8/12/1999 8:57:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 74651

RTEV: Let's see Fisher says the only damage to consumers is what might happen in the future- his words. You say that the future is irrelevant so where is the damage to the consumer as per anti-trust litmus test. Fisher was a gov't. witness as I remember. JFD

To: RTev who wrote (28127)	8/12/1999 9:04:00 PM
From: t2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

The trial is over. The evidence has been submitted. Microsoft will win or lose based on that evidence of what happened and what the competitive environment was a year or more ago. If they lose, then current and projected competitive issues would become important in the penalty phase I thought they can still submit written evidence as well as oral arguments. MSFT did not have a commodity that they controlled. If competition is surfacing now, that means the environment was competitive 1 year ago. There would have been no change from a year ago to now if MSFT had control over a certain commodity such as oil. Remember that the DOJ's economic expert thought MSFT got a monopoly upon the release of Windows95. Mid 95 to mid 98 is only about 3 years. That is kind of short term for one to determine that they had such power in the industry. The monopoly should be sustainable for a longer period of time. If that were the case, evidence from now going forward can't be entered by the DOJ and they must rely on establishing MSFT was a monopoly only over this 3 or 4 year period. I bet judges in this type of case will be swayed by competitive changes taking place (even now). The other argument is that competition existed a year ago. The emergence of Linux was not the result of the court case simply because no remedies have been imposed on Microsoft. It is just proof that MSFT was operating in a competitive environment and took appropriate strategies to protect their business----by keeping prices low enough. They should be charging 3 times as much for Windows and would if it was possible. RTev, IMHO, MSFT will win in court but that doesn't matter. The DOJ has basically told PC makers and others that you don't have to align yourself with MSFT and only MSFT. In this way, the government has won on a short term basis. Longer term (with launch of Windows2k), that is a different story. I don't see MSFT settling unless the DOJ/States drop some of their demands. My guess is that the politicians will say settle as winners rather than risk losing everything gained with the courtroom performances. After all these are politicians(States AG) or report to politicians (DOJ). As more and more of the AOL's defiance over instant messaging and the Red Hat stock type of stories are reported, the DOJ/States start feeling more heat. If they don't back down in the demands, i would guess that at least 1 or 2 states will threaten to drop out of the case before final resolution. In response to such a threat, the demands will get watered down------and BINGO we have a settlement!!!! Such a simple scenario but i see it as probable. BTW--that is one of the reasons i don't want to get caught not holding the stock. '